TonyE

HCE - 2008.041 ============== - Chg:0000 GE Made changes to allow the four new official battlesets. - Chg:2422 GE Improve ARMs against groups where the central unit's radars are already destroyed. (thanks Herman) http://harpgamer.com/harpforum/index.php?showtopic=2333 - Chg:0000 GE Randomly pick between four splash screen graphics at startup. - Chg:0000 GE Use Matrix Games provided game icon instead of the old admiral. - Chg:B021 GE Fixed range rings so that they center on the group icon. (thanks Herman) - Chg:0000 SE Made changes to allow the four new official battlesets. - Chg:0000 BB Fixed but that prevented any battleset from being made in normal use. - Chg:0000 BS Added Caribbean Basin BattleSet hdsn.res, hdsn.rsr, *.SCs, *.hps - Chg:0000 BS Added South Atlantic BattleSet hdso.res, hdso.rsr, *.SCt, *.hpt - Chg:0000 BS Added South Africa BattleSet hdsp.res, hdsp.rsr, *.SCu, *.hpu - Chg:0000 BS Added Middle East BattleSet hdsq.res, hdsq.rsr, *.SCv, *.hpv - Chg:0000 DB HCDB-080602 included in the package. Lots and lots to test guys, once you get thru the backlogged release notes we may be able to release this beast.

2008.041 I think I have a decent work around for now. I no longer have the "3 Second launch.hpq" problem. Attached is a test scenario I made. With 2008.041 I tried. Knocked out radar of the airfield. I could still use ARMs against the mobile radar and ADATs Knocked out all radars. My ARM only strikers were told they no longer had appropriate weapons. This is correct. Launched ARM laden planes when all radars were already knocked out. GE let me launch (same behavior as previous versions, not optimal but not worse...), then I received the immediate message that I had no land capable weapons. This is correct. Destroyed the airfield, left the radar of the ADATs working. Launched ARM laden planes, they could attack ADATs without problem. This is correct. So until the beta testers prove me wrong, I think this one is good until weapons allocation is re-written. ARMTEST.zip

Mark, it is a problem in the scenario editor and game engine itself. Once you get to a certain picture ID, the SE ignores the platform photos (a hard coded limit), same in the GE but the GE's limit is higher. http://harpgamer.com/harpforum/index.php?s...post&p=7421 HCE - 2008.026 ============== - Chg:0000 GE Allow high PicIDs for commondb battlesets. - Chg:0000 SE Allow high PicIDs for commondb battlesets. As you can see, it was identified and fixed shortly AFTER the 2008.024 release, just bad luck that it didn't get found before the release of the patch. It will be fixed in the next release of the game. Or if you get really into it, sign up to be a beta tester over the summer and you can use the current beta which doesn't have that limitation

HCE - 2008.040 ============== - Chg:0000 GE Widened game time display and made it dependent upon screen DPI - Chg:B023 GE WestPac 2.0 Victory Conditions revamped, instead of targeting a specific class of ship, a larger number of any ship must be destroyed. - Chg:B022 GE WestPac 2.0 Blue default courses were resulting in groundings, Blue courses in many cases recreated but in all cases will not run aground anymore with the default courses (assuming the ships are stopped by the player at end of course). - Chg:0000 GE Removed text in WestPac description talking about only two scenarios being included. - Chg:0000 GE New splash screen.

HCE - 2008.040 ============== - Chg:0000 GE Widened game time display and made it dependent upon screen DPI - Chg:B023 GE WestPac 2.0 Victory Conditions revamped, instead of targeting a specific class of ship, a larger number of any ship must be destroyed. (Akula says fixed) - Chg:B022 GE WestPac 2.0 Blue default courses were resulting in groundings, Blue courses in many cases recreated but in all cases will not run aground anymore with the default courses (assuming the ships are stopped by the player at end of course). - Chg:0000 GE Removed text in WestPac description talking about only two scenarios being included. - Chg:0000 GE New splash screen. -Chg:B022 GE is a pain to test, I did tested it, now it is your turn . And Brad made the zillions of changes to make it work.

The world was starting to wonder, we must have our Sitrep fix fulfilled periodically. Some day I'll get brave and try to submit news or an article for it

sob... but at least it is one more Tomcat that didn't go in the wood chipper

Congrats Mark on your purchase, all HC players should benefit from your purchase, especially if the new scenarios keep appearing from you True, in 2008.024 only one extra battleset can be loaded at a time. We reserved four slots for extra user-made battlesets but only made one available in 2008.024. We also left four spots for official battlesets which may or may not be included in the next patch. I'm considering waiting on both of those accounts until a later patch when we modify file formats in a fashion that will allow more precise linking of saves and scenarios to battlesets. So help is on the way, the question is whether there will be an interim improvement before the more distant big improvement. AI subs, I set a speed, then I create a course, at the first course point I set the speed again (I think you can skip setting the speed outside of the course dialog as it is not needed if you enter the speed as soon as you open the course editing dialog). I can't speak to the third question for national security reasons

Isn't a lagging service in terms of unmanned weapons probably a good thing in the long run? If unmanned turns out to be great in a high threat (physical and electronic) then the Navy loses, but if unmanned isn't great in that high threat environment, Navy could save the day. It is expensive no doubt but as some people are hopefully starting to understand, defense and infrastructure is about more than maintaining the bare minimum at levels assuming optimum performance (i.e. it isn't a business!). The Navy staying with a manned emphasis provides imho a key backstop in case things in the unmanned world don't fulfill the shiny marketing material promises. This says he who thinks so few aircraft and ship designs (will anything not use AEGIS in the next 15 years?) is a strategic vulnerability in the US military, variety is expensive but provides that same backstop if one platform turns out to be vulnerable.

These two teams make the rest of hockey look bad. Even my mom commented, "Those two teams are playing hard all game. We go watch a game and maybe they skate hard for one period." Fun to watch though, I hardly got any programming done outside of the between period breaks!

I would shy away from the carrier strike, I think the Tu-22 and Bears had that covered quite well! I do like the idea of a land strike, perhaps taking out early warning radars, maybe facing whatever F-22 equivalent could have been fielded at the time (not knowing when the scenario is set makes the crystal ball cloudy). Maybe some F-117 need to strap on Sidewinders and help out the F-15s I don't think a pure AAW battle without some land element would be all that rewarding. my 2 cents anyway

v.0.9.2.0 * If you uncheck a scenario in the list it won't be included in the dsd file. * The column headings of the scenario listing are now clickable for sorting. * Scenarios may be dragged one at a time by click and dragging the fixed column, column 0, to the desired spot in the list. * BattleSet description now has vertical scroll bar and word wrap is turned on. User still needs to enter linefeeds for paragraph breaks. * Auto-size file path portion of scenario listing as the program window width is changed. Thanks to Herman for the feedback, it would be nice if multiple scenarios could be dragged around for sorting but that just isn't possible at present.

The May 2008 ieee Spectrum magazine had an engaging article describing some attempts to prevent sabotage of military electronic components as more and more of those components originate outside of government production facilities and outside of US facilities. I've finally gotten around to tracking down the online version. You can find it at: http://spectrum.ieee.org/may08/6171 The topic really crosses a number of my interests, electronic design, weapons systems, Harpoon... So far I can't imagine how one goes about modelling cyber attacks in our games, let alone faulty chips. Is there a 1 in 1000 chance that all of your F-22 are going to become unuseable in a scenario, is that how to model such a possible vector of attack. Physical sabotage at a level the human eye can see is one thing (and very difficult to accomplish across an entire airfield, let alone an entire airforce), but attacks that can only be probabalistically detected before they unleash a deadly payload, wow...

Hi Pete, go F-14! The lack of Sparrows in the F-14 loadout surprised me a bit. Does that limitation arise from the platform data, range requirements, bad fuses ? I miss those golden olden days of Intruders and Tomcats...

Well, not technically a problem. The help system in question has security holes that Microsoft did not deem reasonable to fix so it wasn't included in Vista. Hehe, I posted it too

If you are still here you contributed enough to remain a beta tester until September 1st. Thank you and congratulations If you've forgotten the deal, read http://harpgamer.com/harpforum/index.php?showtopic=2364

Thank you for writing Eugene, we need to hear you and your friends speak up on such topics so your post is most welcomed. Uncommon for me, I have nothing to add to your post .

Thank you for typing up your list! Your timing is excellent as well as we look towards changing some of the game structure to accomodate such requests.

I like TFR because it is short, I don't like it since it is just one term out of a number of terms and methodologies that allow a good chance of survivability at VLow altitude.

Oh, that's scary. I think we should get the work unpublished, all records erased, and pretend it didn't happen The manpad from the sail idea meant the sub was usually going to be dead anyway but if it is firing submerged that's a whole new ball game imho. The P-8 dropping torps from high altitude via parachute may not seem so silly after all. Then you post this story the same day as a AMRAAM with GPS updates story, I don't even want to think about a sub launching a longer ranged SAM with GPS and OTH targeting

No, there is no built in function to do that single platform export in HC. It will probably be up to third parties to contribute such functionality (though I've suggested I would provide assistance as needed). There should also be some database structure changes in the long term that may make exporting and importing platforms easier.

Can you clarify what you mean by export? Or what you are trying to accomplish during this export?

I'll welcome re-written orders, I think the USNI scenarios need them (probably shouldn't rewrite them for any of the un-remade scenarios yet though).

Take care if you follow Rene's approach there, it will only work for annexes whose entries are not used by other higher level annexes. So it will work for installations, ships, subs, and planes, but it won't work for weapons, magazines, mounts, etc.

I would welcome a serious undertaking to gauge interest in MP from a variety of directions like you suggest. We had a very short brainstorming session on the topic during the chat yesterday. It can't be simply a "would you like to see multiplayer" question, a relative gauging of what players want to see probably needs to figure into the questions (i.e. MP will take about xxxx man hours, logistics xxx man hours,... how would you rate them). I see you thinking beside the box as well thinking about money, that's a nearly impossible case to make (it is expensive pulling me away from real life work to do Harpoon but it would make additional time available for MP instead of stealing it from other goals). Money is also ugly from the perspective of who needs to be paid once one person gets paid. I may be the programmer but my code isn't worth squat without testers to drive refinement of the code, do they need to be paid, et al. As for who is the PRO MP group... I think that'd be Vince, yourself, and me for the hard core supporters. I know Brad would like it once the database limits are raised. I think your argument that the old guard of players who dominate the people making wishlists here and who are most frequently conversing with me do give me a biased opinion that MP isn't so key. So your efforts to get others talking could make a difference, until then I probably have to go with those who are going the extra mile (and nudging me every day towards their agenda ) for the game. I think Brad, Scott, and I are always going to listen and note the various opinions even if we don't act on them immediately. Anyway, I'm at your disposal to give any input you need on forming a survey for players and sponsoring it somehow if need be.